CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Studying The Bottom's Lines

British academics at he School of Textiles and Design at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh hope to give men a scientific answer to one of the most feared questions males ever hear from their wives:

Does my bum look big in this?

Germany Speculates U.S. Readying Iran Attack

In Germany, speculation is mounting that the U.S. is preparing to attack suspected ian nuclear sites as soon as early 2006.

According to Germany's Der Spiegel, German media reports indicate countries neighboring , such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan.

The German reports also claim that CIA chief Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, provided dossiers to Turkish security officials containing evidence that Tehran is cooperating with al-Qaeda and information about the current status of 's alleged nuclear weapons program. The reports also say Goss requested that Turkey provide military bases from which the U.S. would be able to launch the attack.

I don't put much stock in this. The idea that Turkey would cooperate with a U.S. attack on just doesn't make sense. Turkey wouldn't even allow U.S. forces to transit Turkey to participate in the liberation of Iraq. But there are the reports of U.S. forces on the ground in , U.S. combat aircraft and reconnaissance drones violating ian airspace.

At Captain's Quarters, Ed Morrissey credits the saber rattling with causing to reconsider Russia's offer to offer to process allow to process uranium in Russia.

At Protein Wisdom, Jeff Goldstein thinks the saber rattling is an effort to convince of our seriousness and enhance our diplomatic bargaining position.

KKK vs. Al Qaeda

Those opposed to the liberation of Iraq frequently compare it to Vietnam. At Discarded Lies, Levi from Queens suggests that Vietnam is the wrong comparison. In "Reconstruction vs. Iraq – the Klan vs. Al Qaeda – America lost to the terrorists last time; why won’t that happen again?" we are provided a thought provoking analysis comparing the Civil War Reconstruction to the situation in Iraq:

Following the Civil War, the southern planter class was dispossessed, broke, and badly bloodied. Northern troops occupied the South, and they were needed to protect the former slaves. Like Iraq, there were three major ethnic groups in the south, first the coastal/piedmont planters who traced their forebears to the royalist side of the English Civil War and then back to the Normans. [. . .] The Scotch-Irish hailed from Ulster and the north of England, lived in the mountains, and were substantially more loyal in the Civil War than the coastal/piedmont people. There were pro-union white people scattered through the south. The freedmen were uniformly staunchly pro-union and made up a majority of many of the southern states; so they could look towards electoral control. There-- you have the Arab Sunni as the Normans, the coastal and piedmont whites, the Shia as the freedmen, and the hill-dwelling Kurds as the Scotch-Irish.

[. . .]

The Klan formed as an ostensibly-Christian organization from Confederate veterans and proceeded to terrorize people who got in the way of restoring the old elite’s dominance. It met at night, wore stupid costumes, burned crosses, lynched some people, and murdered others. The Klan however had no suicide bombers and no foreign fighters. The Union occupying army was not gentle and was widely resented.

Levi suggests that this analogy presents a gloomy picture for Iraq. The Baathist revanchists, like the Klan, may struggle on for decades. I think Levi misses the biggest point. The Klan may still be hanging around, but it isn't lynching folks anymore. Al Qaeda in Iraq may hang around for years and years like the Klan, but the evil doers will become less menacing as the Iraqis are trained to defend themselves and democracy and freedom continue to take root.

Thanks to Jay Teal at Wizbang for the tip.

A Window Into Libya

Don't miss Michael Totten's account of his visit to the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya published by the LA Weekly: In the Land of the Brother Leader:

I didn’t go to Libya to see the sights — such as they are. I wanted to see a once-forbidden country as it really was. So I set out on foot on my own while I had a brief chance.

It was a jarring experience.

The entire article, complete with photos, is jarring.

Michael posts:

I don’t know if this is the best thing I’ve ever written, but it’s certainly my favorite. Please be sure to read the whole thing.

Read the article. It won't disappoint you.

Photo courtesy of Michael Totten.

64% Approve Of NSA Intercepts

According to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

Even 51 percent of Democrats agree.

Rasmussen also found that only 26 percent believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news.

The survey was conducted December 26-27, 2005 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percent.

It is indeed heartening to see that the public supports what is permissible under controlling legal authority. As David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey wrote in their Op-Ed piece in yesterday's New York Times:

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad.

The Rasmussen findings are especially surprising when you consider the 2004 Biennial Media Consumption Survey conducted by the Pew Center for the People and the Press found television news is still America's most popular source of news. As Cori Dauber posts at Rantingprofs, "the complexities of the legal arguments are absent from broadcast news."

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas Happy Hannukah!

Muslims Monitored For Radiation

According to U.S. News and World Report the federal government has secretly monitored radiation levels at Muslim sites, including mosques and private homes, since September 11, 2001 as part of a top secret program searching for nuclear bombs, since 9/11.

The top secret program included more than a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, plus sites in at least five other cities.

Compounding the hullabaloo created by the NSA's intercepts of electronic communications, the radiation monitoring was also done without warrants:

In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

Federal officials familiar with the program maintain that warrants are unneeded for the kind of radiation sampling the operation entails, but some legal scholars disagree.

The radiation monitoring has been going on since 1992:

The nuclear surveillance program began in early 2002 and has been run by the FBI and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Two individuals, who declined to be named because the program is highly classified, spoke to U.S. News because of their concerns about the legality of the program. At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day, nearly all of them Muslim targets drawn up by the FBI. For some ten months, officials conducted daily monitoring, and they have resumed daily checks during periods of high threat. The program has also operated in at least five other cities when threat levels there have risen: Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, and Seattle.

The magazine stated that officials rejected any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims:

We categorically do not target places of worship or entitles solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate.

Reuters is also covering the story. It reports that at its peak, the program "involved three vehicles in the Washington area monitoring 120 sites a day, nearly all of them Muslim targets such as prominent mosques and office buildings selected by the FBI."

According to Reuters, te Council on American-Islamic Relations said the report of radiation monitoring coupled with the domestic eavesdropping, "could lead to the perception that we are no longer a nation ruled by law, but instead one in which fear trumps constitutional rights:"

All Americans should be concerned about the apparent trend toward a two-tiered system of justice, with full rights for most citizens, and another diminished set of rights for Muslims.

This program bothers me a lot more than secret electronic intercepts of contents of communications where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda, and where one party to the communication is outside the United States.

When you combine both programs, well the questions just won't stop. The administration's domestic spying programs are obviously much broader than most will, or should, accept without proper oversight.

UPDATE: At The Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr posts that the nuclear monitoring program again raises several interesting Fourth Amendment questions considered in Kyllo v. United States:

For example, is measuring ambient gamma rays different from measuring infrared radiation emanating from a specific surface? Are Geiger counters (or whatever tool they used to measure radiation) in "general public use"? And does Kyllo, which was focused on the case of a private home, also apply to mosques, businesses, and warehouses?

At the RCP Blog, Tom Bevan wonders why we can't resolve these national security programs in private.

Hugh Hewitt agrees that the radiation monitoring is more problematical, posting "if surreptitious entry of a private home of an American citizen was made without a warrant, that will not have the instant, easy and unassailable defense that the NSA program received and deserved."
___
Technorati Tags: spying national security Muslims nuclear monitoring US News leaks

Kofi Annan's Temper Tantrum

UN secretary general Kofi Annan resorted to name-calling during an end-of-year press conference. When New York Times reporter, James Bone, started to ask the Secretary General an embarrassing question on reports about Annan's son, Kojo, the world's chief diplomat pitched a fit.

According to the Guardian, Annan branded Bone him an "overgrown schoolboy:"

"I think you're being very cheeky. Listen James Bone, you've been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this room for many, many months and years," the UN secretary general said. "You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving and please let's move on to a serious subject," he added.

The UN head's outburst followed a series of questions over his part in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.

Mr Annan accused journalists of missing stories about the programme, which he said had sometimes been covered through "deliberate leaks" that were "fed by people with agendas".

Bone conceded journalists had missed the stories, but said the UN hadn't "made it easy" for them to discover the truth about this, or about allegations that Mr Annan's son Kojo had imported a Mercedes-Benz car into Ghana using his father's diplomatic status to avoid taxes.

"Your version of events doesn't really make sense," he said - a remark that appears to have been the final straw for the embattled Mr Annan.

The relevant portion of the transcript makes it clear that Annan was off base:

Q: Happy holidays, Sir. In the spirit of that, I am wondering if you think that the complex budget and reform negotiations down in the basement will be done by Christmas, or whether you think it will be more of a New Year's cliffhanger. Also, I am sure that you or your people have been spending a lot of time down there in the negotiations. Can you describe why, in this now-or-never moment, as you put it, on United Nations reform, there is so much resistance or inability of these delegates to come to some kind of conclusion?

SG: Let me say that I would prefer to see the budget issue and the reform discussions brought to a conclusion before Christmas. But, of course, if we fail that, then we will have to come back after Christmas. And I think the Member States realize that they don't have much time, and they may have to come up with some creative ways of ending their work. One option they are looking at is instead of going through the resolution of 250 paragraphs, perhaps come up with a shorter document that they can agree on, and complete their work and move on. As of yesterday, of the 250 paragraphs, I think only four paragraphs had been approved, and so I don't see them finishing if they continue on that track.

I think the atmosphere is also a bit tense, and once again, I think they need to really talk to each other. Tempers are high, and there's quite a bit of mistrust. There is a sense that they are operating in an atmosphere of threats and intimidation, which some of them say they resent. But quite frankly, I think the only choice they have is to sit down and talk honestly and sincerely and frankly to each other and try and come to an understanding. But they have to put the interests of the Organization first, not narrow interests.

Q: (inaudible) If you don't know what that means, that's “Happy New Year” in Arabic.

Q: Don't look at me!

SG: But it's not Arabic.

Q: It is Arabic, but it (inaudible) doesn't mean “Happy New Year”; it means something else.

Q: It had the word “Mercedes” in, but I took it out. Just to comment on the Mercedes before I ask my question. The Volcker report says that the Mercedes was bought in your name, so as the owner of the car, can you tell us what happened to it and where it is now?

Now, my question is that, it's true that we missed a lot of stories in the oil-for-food scandal, and the UN hasn't made it easy. And even your answer today on the Mercedes so far hasn't made it easy. Some of your own stories – your own version of events – don't really make sense. I'd like to ask you particularly –

SG: I think you are being very cheeky here.

Q: Well, let me – Sir, let me ask my question.

SG: No, hold on. Hold on. Listen, James Bone. You have been behaving like an overgrown schoolboy in this room for many, many months and years. You are an embarrassment to your colleagues and to your profession. Please stop misbehaving, and please let's move on to a more serious subject.

Q: (inaudible) my question.

SG: No, move on to a serious –

Q: There are inconsistencies –

SG: No, move on to serious journalists. You go ahead.

Q: James, are you finished?

SG: No, go ahead.

Q: Okay. Mr. Secretary-General, I was waiting for this question. I believe that I was even before James Bone. But, anyhow, here is my question.

It is troubling that the Secretary General doesn't think the U.N. oil-for-food scandal is a "serious subject." That says a great deal about why the scandals occurred.

Patriot Act Extended For Six Months

The Senate voted to extend the USA Patriot Act for six months last night. When the House agrees the Senate will have another twelve months to agree on some sort of compromise to add more protection for those subjected to national security letters and special subpoenas.

I agree that there should be more protections for those subjected to national security letters and special subpoenas. I don't have any confidence that a compromise will be reached before Christmas 2006.

More On The NSAs Secret Intercepts of Al-Qaeda Communications

The debate continues over the NSA's secret electronic intercepts of contents of communications where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda, and where one party to the communication is outside the United States.

There has been no evidence offered suggesting that the NSA intercept program is widespread nefarious big brother program. Today the New York Times reports the program is "focused on a limited group of people:"

After all, officials who have been granted anonymity in describing the program because it is classified say the agency's recent domestic eavesdropping is focused on a limited group of people. Americans come to the program's attention only if they have received a call or e-mail message from a person overseas who is already suspected to be a member of certain terrorist groups or linked somehow to a member of such groups. And the agency still gets a warrant to intercept their calls or e-mail messages to other people in the United States.

In the Washington Times, Charles Hurt writes about the over the Clinton administration's position on whether the president has an inherent power to conduct warrantless searches:

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

Yesterday Byron York, writing at the National Review Online, about the debate over the Clinton administration's position on whether the president has an inherent power to conduct warrantless searches:

On Tuesday, National Review Online reported the testimony of Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick before the House Intelligence Committee in July 1994. Gorelick told lawmakers that the president had the authority to order physical searches — break-ins — for national-security reasons without having to get a warrant from anyone. Gorelick said the Clinton administration would go along with Congress's desire to give the authority to pre-approve those searches to the FISA court, but did not retreat from the position that the president held such authority himself.

The NRO article set off a wave of criticism from Clinton supporters. In a response entitled "The Gorelick Myth," the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, wrote, "York claims that, after the law was amended, 'the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.' That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent 'authority' allowed him to ignore FISA."

The Center's position appears contradicted not only by Gorelick's testimony but by a statement she made to Legal Times in November 1994, several months after her testimony, in which she said, "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority."

York goes on to address an this Chicago Tribune article by John Schmidt President, an associate attorney general under Clinton. Schmidt argues that the presidents have the inherent authority to order warrantless surveillance:

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

Today the Washington Post reports the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism will have a "briefing" to address concerns about the legality of the NSA's program:

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

According to the Post, the judges could, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. Exclusion, forbidding the use in a criminal prosecution of information improperly obtained, is the way abuses of our constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches are addressed.

As I discussed here, The Attorney General also makes a colorable argument that Authorization for Use of Military Force might support this program in addition to the president's inherent powers.

If Congress believes the Authorization for Use of Military Force is being read too broadly, Congress can pass legislation to correct it. Congress has been consulted about this program a dozen times. If Congress thought the program went beyond Authorization for Use of Military Force, Congress had an obligation to take action.

This ongoing hullabaloo about the NSA's program is missing an important perspective. The administration is trying to prevent another attack on this country. The NSA program is designed to focus on the organization that carried out the September 11, attacks in America.

Could the NSA program be abused? Of course it could. There is a danger that the surveillance will be abused. But If this surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another attack on America the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country seems small.